MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104981086 · doi:10.1002/pen.20603

Toughness of high‐density polyethylene in plane‐strain fracture

2006· article· en· W2104981086 on OpenAlexaff
Hyock‐Ju Kwon, P.‐Y. Ben Jar

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymer Engineering and Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Behavior of Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceHigh-density polyethyleneComposite materialFracture toughnessPlane stressNeckingExtrapolationPolyethyleneToughnessBrittlenessStress intensity factorFracture (geology)Stress (linguistics)Fracture mechanicsStructural engineeringFinite element methodMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Under uniaxial tension, high‐density polyethylene (HDPE) often fractures in a ductile manner. The fracture involves extensive necking that is known to occur in the plane‐stress condition. However, for large‐scale HDPE products like polyethylene pipe, crack can grow rapidly in a brittle manner. This type of fracture is known to be in the plane‐strain condition, which has much lower toughness than that in the plane‐stress condition. In this study, we extended the concept of essential work of fracture (EWF) to the plane‐strain condition and evaluated the fracture toughness of extruded HDPE plate. The results show that the specific work of fracture in the plane‐strain condition is also a linear function of the specimen ligament length. Therefore, the corresponding EWF value can be determined in a similar manner, that is, through linear extrapolation to zero ligament length. For HDPE, the study found that the plane‐strain toughness is about one order of magnitude smaller than the plane‐stress counterpart. Interestingly, the plane‐strain EWF value is very close to the estimated toughness of pressurized polyethylene pipe, which was reported in the literature, predicted using numerical simulation based on data from the standard small‐scale steady‐state (S4) test. POLYM. ENG. SCI. 46:1428–1432, 2006. © 2006 Society of Plastics Engineers.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.459

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolymer Engineering and ScienceSame topicMechanical Behavior of CompositesFrench-language works237,207